Section expropriation and destruction of homes 03 "academic circles: expropriation draconian laws should have been abolished long ago. Xu Shirong: there is a big gap between the Democratic Progressive Party before and after the election." it is false to l

0 sharing

Seven years ago, on August 18, in order to seek justice for the residents of Miaoli Dapu who were forcibly demolished, the public occupied the office building of the Ministry of the Interior and planted vegetables on the turf of the Ministry of the Interior, hoping to make civil servants of the Ministry of the Interior remember the precious value of the land. Seven years later, non-governmental groups, scholars and experts, and the collection and self-help meeting of the five major sections gathered again to hold a press conference to complain that the expropriation of the Chen section caused persecution.

The Ring Mission and the self-help Society called on the government to suspend the disputed cases, restart the amendment of the Land expropriation Ordinance, and put forward three major demands: abolishing district expropriation, clearly defining the public welfare and necessity assessment methods and examination standards, and the three major directions of amending the land expropriation regulations, such as the comprehensive handling of land expropriation hearings.

Professor Hsu Shih-jung of the Department of Politics, Dai Xiuxiong, Assistant Professor of the Department of Politics, and Kang Chun-chieh, Associate Professor of the Urban and Rural Institute of National Taiwan University, condemned the central and local governments for causing oppression on the residents. Xu Shirong said: "the Democratic Progressive Party in opposition kept saying that section expropriation was a draconian law, but after it came to power, it warmly embraced it and was more barbaric than when the KMT was in power. Such a government should step down!"

At the press conference on the seventh anniversary of the dismantling of the government in 818, the residents' self-help Association of the five disputed sections, Xu Shirong, a professor of the Department of Politics and Politics, and Chen Jiaohua, a legislator of time Power, were all present at the press conference. Xu Shirong called on the government to repeal the draconian law of district expropriation (photo _ Lin Yijun): the DPP's attitude towards district expropriation is very different before and after the election, and it is false to love Taiwan and should step down.

Xu Shirong, a professor in the Department of Lands at National Chengchi University, said that Taiwan's section expropriation system originated from the excess levy system in Europe and the United States. this system was applied in France, Britain and Belgium in the 19th century, and then spread to the United States and Japan, but at the beginning of the 20th century, the United States and Japan abolished this system because Professor Fescu of Cornell University thought it was a very dangerous system at that time. More than a hundred years ago, all states in the United States reached a consensus that this system was unconstitutional, but none of Taiwan's domestic land-related books mentioned that section expropriation had been abolished.

Xu Shirong said that now the DPP government knows full well that section expropriation is unconstitutional, but it is unwilling to abolish it. He pointed out that after the Miaoli Dapu incident, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which was still in opposition, jointly proposed "abolishing section expropriation" on February 26, 1993 (proposal No. 16088 of the General Committee of the Yuan). The sponsors are Chen Qimai, Lin Shufen, and you Mei). The reason for the case is that "the section expropriation case is unconstitutional and infringes upon the rights and interests of the people."

"I clearly know that there is something wrong with the system, but the attitude before and after the election is completely different!" Xu Shirong denounced and publicly denounced: "such a dishonest political party should step down. The so-called local consciousness and recognition of Taiwan are all false. It is these five self-help people who really love Taiwan and love the land." Xu Shirong concluded with the words of Justice Zhan Lin: "the people do not need to live because of the law, but the law exists because of the people."

Xu Shirong (Photography _ Lin Yijun) Dai Xiuxiong, a professor in the Department of Lands at National Chengchi University: the government wants joint development, why should the public provide property rights as equity for joint development?

Dai Xiuxiong, an assistant professor in the department of lands at National Chengchi University, explained that the modern constitutional state is based on the basic rights of the people, and the social obligations for private property rights are not strong enough to lead to the deprivation or emptiness of property rights. Therefore, any expropriation derived from public power is not within the scope of social obligations to be endured by private property rights, "the reason for justifying and legalizing expropriation. It is absolutely necessary to exceed the requirements of the general and universal obligations of society, so it is necessary to examine the public welfare of the purpose of expropriation on a case-by-case basis. "

Dai Hsiu-hsiung explains that even if the expropriation of offset land is regarded as joint development, it is still a kind of expropriation like a fake exchange. "if the government wants joint development, why should the public provide property rights as equity for joint development?" Dai further explained that the state should have borne the infrastructure needed for the people's livelihood, such as water, electricity and transportation, and unless the local people have special needs, the local people have to pay for it themselves, but the levy of public facilities in each district is tantamount to letting people in specific areas bear the cost of public facilities, which is against the principle of fairness.

In addition, Tai Hsiu-hsiung questioned that public facilities benefit nearby landowners, and that from the very beginning, there has been a project benefit fee mechanism and a land value-added tax aimed at land price increases, which are sufficient to deal with the so-called natural appreciation. Why is it necessary to use a separate section expropriation mechanism to remove part of the available land so as to remove the resulting appreciation of the land?

Tai Hsiu-hsiung warned that the consequences of district expropriation are irrecoverable. In the Tai Po case, large-scale land restitution and restitution are usually someone's original land, so it is difficult for individual land to deal with their reply separately. As a result, district expropriation cannot exercise the right of recovery in accordance with the law, and even when the court cancels the expropriation, it is unable to restore the state before expropriation. "in recent years, government agencies have only emphasized the compensation operation in the latter section, but the system of district expropriation is almost in violation of the spirit of the constitutional protection of private property rights, not to mention the right to survive, work and live!"